What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?

Wow... This is one of the best books on Pauline thought I have ever read. It is difficult for many Western Christians to hear, but much of what we believe about what Paul really said is born out of the polemics of the reformation and counter-reformation. Eastern Orthodoxy never went through the fires of a reformation (save a comparatively minor bout with iconoclasm that did not end up splitting the eastern wing of the church). Thus, it is arguable that the three great branches of Christianity ended up developing Pauline theology in different ways due to historical forces largely beyond any one individual's control. This book, it seems to this reviewer, tries to cut through the muddle by placing Paul firmly in his first century context. The image of what St. Paul really said emerges as layer after layer of what has been added to Paul by centuries of history and scholarship (liberal and conservative) is removed. Those fiercely loyal to the 16th century reformationist view of Paul will find some things to agree with in this book, but for the most part will be challenged. Those loyal to the Catholic tradition will perhaps be less challenged by overall thesis of the book, but they will be challenged to examine just where Protestants get Paul "right." I have one observation about the supposed "New Perspective." It is, to me, a problematic moniker. Rather, Wright seems to be arguing for the "orthodox perspective" (small "o") of Paul. This book is way more Catholic and Orthodox than many other evangelical Protestants might like. This book is more protestant than some Catholics (especially traditionalists) might like. However, it is clearly not an exercise in syncretic ecumenism. Rather, Wright is pointing to truth, by giving an authentically biblical and historical reading of the Pauline texts, and letting the evidence, as opposed to any pre-existing loyalty to a dogma, lead him where it may. This is what the best biblical scholars do. And Wright is one of the best living.

Wrights treatment on Paul aims to grasp Paul the apostle in his context of his own day and age and all that implies. Protestant christians will be uncomfortable with Wright's take on justification, and maybe a few other things, but relax, Wright is not out to short circuit a gospel of grace, contrary to the accusations by some. Wright makes many very bona fide points in this work, and it is very much worth learning from. For instance: The apostle Paul's main message was not how to go to heaven when you die ( as if that's what was being asked by first century Jews of Paul's day and age ), but rather Paul's message was simply that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is the true King not Caesar, or anyone else. Jesus is God's son, and as such is the Lord of the universe. Jesus is The God ordained location of God's redeeming and ruling activity. Wright's worth is that he aims to help biblical readers situate the new testament in it's first century Jewish context, and then see what that means for the good news of Jesus that the new testament proclaims. For the most part, not withstanding a few possible gliches, he does a much needed job at that.

N.T. Wright is a tremendous author, whether you agree with him or not. He does a wonderful job of showing that Paul was the faithful interpretor of Jesus, and not the founder of Christianity. Wright argues that if Paul would have said the same things Jesus did, then he would have been claiming Messiahship as well. A previous revewier has stated that this book is the end of Protestantism. His reason is that "the central theme of the gospel to Protestantism is justification by faith". That may be the case within some strands of Protestantism, but is not so all throughout the board (i.e. the Redemptive-Historical school of Reformed Theology with Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin). Now to the controversial "Fresh Perspective on Paul" as Wright calls it. I am a confessional Protestant who adheres to the Westminster standards, and do not have a problem highly endorsing the eschatological focus of this book. He says that the crucifixion is the chief eschatological act. This ligns right up with what Richard Gaffin says in 'Resurrection and Redemption' from a Reformed perspective. I really liek his interpretation of 'dikaiosune theou', or righteousness of God. That has been a perplexing topic in the history of interpretation and is usually identified as a genitive of origin to uphold the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. However, Wright classifies it as a subjective genitive, where the righteousness is God's own righteousness in His covenental faithfulness by redeeming Israel. This clears up a lot of muddled water where that the genitive of origen will not work in all contexts. His notion of justification is the other controversial aspect of his theology. He puts it in the first century Jewish context, rather than a polemical context of church history. The three themes of 1st century Jewish theology that he explains are law court, covenant and eschatology. This has some interesting twists that many will not like, but I find to be quite helpful. I have little problems with an already/not yet aspect to justification (to be more biblical theological), which would correlate with his emphasis on the eschatological nature of justification (see Romans 2:13). This is a tremendous work that is highly recommended!

I have skimmed or read in detail most of Wright's book, but since I will be working with it for the rest of this semester I may find need to reappraise it. So far, so good, as I am concerned.This book is only "dangerous" and "unorthodox" if you interpret the entire Pauline corpus based on Romans 5 and Galatians 3. Wright's claim is that a larger horizon needs to be accorded to Paul's thought than justification by faith (which is NEVER "alone")--however, what some other reviewers here neglect to mention is that Wright says that this is *central*, but not THE center, of Paul's theology. I approached the book very guardedly, because I thought his prologue was rather pompous. But I actually found the writing to be very good and the scholarship to be judicious, even if he doesn't on the surface appear to immerse himself in "hardcore" exegesis. He takes what is good from Sanders and other modern biblical scholars and tries to separate it from liberal crap. His exposition on the Pauline Trinity--God, Lord, and Spirit--was breathtakingly good. His defense of Jesus' primacy in the founding of Christianity is admirable. Finally, his treatment of Paul's Jewishness was very helpful and gives further motivation to my desire to immerse myself in the OT/Jewish world, to help my understanding of the roots of Christianity.As an aspiring scholar, with conservative-leaning tendencies, I found this book to be quite inspiring. I think Wright provides a good example of scholarship that is largely CORRECT, illuminating, and at the same time beneficial spiritually. May the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you.